If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Y'know, so far jackknife's the only one who's actually stated what he thinks is reasonable gun control. Every other asshole with an opinion is just screaming for MOAR CONTROL or MOAR GUNS! Only the lunatic fringe would ever argue that citizens should have the right to freely purchase any weapon they feel like, and only the lunatic fringe would ever argue that citizens should have absolutely no access to firearms under any circumstances.

I don't think anyone here has flat-out cried for MOAR CONTROL. And I, for one, have started typing out some of my specific ideas on gun control a few times now, but I always stop, because this is the answer you always get:

Add law upon law to theoretically stop it ain't the
cure.

Nobody wants to add laws on laws just for the fuck of it, dude. You know that. It's about making the RIGHT laws. And as far as I know, it has never been illegal to own an assault weapon here. It was illegal to manufacture them from something like 1994 to 2004.

Anyway, my broad views on gun control are exactly that of Jackknife's broad views. Until very recently, I was pro-heavy gun rights, staunchly pro-concealed carry. I'm swinging in the other direction in a major way, but I can see both sides of the issue. Here are some of my thoughts, based on nothing. I am not an expert on the issue.

First of all, an out-right ban on assault weapons. There's no reason to have them. Outside of those, I don't have a big problem with the types of guns allowed.

There should be a background check/some kind of check for mental health for every gun purchase. So that means no gun shows, no online purchases, no transactions between "private collectors".

I don't think people should be able to buy guns for other people, possibly unless he/she has been previously approved for a firearm.

"Straw purchases" are the most common way people get their hands on guns illegally. That is, a person with no criminal record buys a gun for a felon who is not legally allowed to have one. They are hard to prove, but even when it is obvious, people barely get charged, or they get a slap on the wrist. Purchasers should be required to keep a record of guns they buy, and report lost or stolen guns within a determined period of time. That way, if a crime gun is traced back to them, they can better prove their innocence. There should be stricter penalties against straw purchasers.

It is relatively simple for legit gun dealers to traffic weapons. About 60% of crime guns are traced back 1.2% of dealers, most of them "missing" guns that were actually sold off the books. An NRA-funded congress makes it increasingly harder to shut down corrupt dealers.

The ATF is incredibly restricted in its ability to enforce laws ans disseminate information to local law enforcement and the public.

I'm tired of listing shit. I'm not saying all of this has to be done, but it should all be addressed. Because right now, there is almost no discourse going on about guns. Main reason in my opinion, Citizens United. As long as the NRA is allowed to influence legislation, we won't see any significant changes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.

I don't think anyone here has flat-out cried for MOAR CONTROL. And I, for one, have started typing out some of my specific ideas on gun control a few times now, but I always stop, because this is the answer you always get:

Nobody wants to add laws on laws just for the fuck of it, dude. You know that. It's about making the RIGHT laws. And as far as I know, it has never been illegal to own an assault weapon here. It was illegal to manufacture them from something like 1994 to 2004.

Anyway, my broad views on gun control are exactly that of Jackknife's broad views. Until very recently, I was pro-heavy gun rights, staunchly pro-concealed carry. I'm swinging in the other direction in a major way, but I can see both sides of the issue. Here are some of my thoughts, based on nothing. I am not an expert on the issue.

First of all, an out-right ban on assault weapons. There's no reason to have them. Outside of those, I don't have a big problem with the types of guns allowed.

There should be a background check/some kind of check for mental health for every gun purchase. So that means no gun shows, no online purchases, no transactions between "private collectors".

I don't think people should be able to buy guns for other people, possibly unless he/she has been previously approved for a firearm.

"Straw purchases" are the most common way people get their hands on guns illegally. That is, a person with no criminal record buys a gun for a felon who is not legally allowed to have one. They are hard to prove, but even when it is obvious, people barely get charged, or they get a slap on the wrist. Purchasers should be required to keep a record of guns they buy, and report lost or stolen guns within a determined period of time. That way, if a crime gun is traced back to them, they can better prove their innocence. There should be stricter penalties against straw purchasers.

It is relatively simple for legit gun dealers to traffic weapons. About 60% of crime guns are traced back 1.2% of dealers, most of them "missing" guns that were actually sold off the books. An NRA-funded congress makes it increasingly harder to shut down corrupt dealers.

The ATF is incredibly restricted in its ability to enforce laws ans disseminate information to local law enforcement and the public.

I'm tired of listing shit. I'm not saying all of this has to be done, but it should all be addressed. Because right now, there is almost no discourse going on about guns. Main reason in my opinion, Citizens United. As long as the NRA is allowed to influence legislation, we won't see any significant changes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.

Y'know, so far jackknife's the only one who's actually stated what he thinks is reasonable gun control. Every other asshole with an opinion is just screaming for MOAR CONTROL or MOAR GUNS! Only the lunatic fringe would ever argue that citizens should have the right to freely purchase any weapon they feel like, and only the lunatic fringe would ever argue that citizens should have absolutely no access to firearms under any circumstances.

This isn't abortion or gay marriage, where there are only two options ; yes or no. If you guys lightened up on the for/against rhetoric and actually said what you think is a reasonable measure of gun control, you'd be part of something that actually resembles a political discussion more than it resembles a pack of caged monkeys flinging shit at each other. Because I'm pretty sure nobody here believes that retarded 14-year-old aspies should be allowed to own AK's with 100 round mags and underslung grenade launchers, and nobody here believes that cattle ranchers shouldn't be allowed to buy a .22LR break-action rifle to put down their injured stock.

So hey, you've all got something in common. You're all in favour of gun control, to some extent. Maybe start focusing on the 'extent' part of things and arguing specifics instead of just screeching for LESS/MORE.

I believe there are already plenty of laws on the books, and more laws will do nothing to help prevent this from happening again.

In general, there are WAY too many laws on the books covering anything, to the point that on any given day, everyone here is probably guilty of several misdemeanors, and a felony, without even knowing it.

I am not saying sell grenades, or grenade launchers, however thats more in the spirit of what the founders of this country had in mind when the founding documents were written.

This is a great way to do it. Baldwin would call the likes of me a "lunatic fringe". Even the police officers here do not carry firearms of any kind, which makes Norway not a democracy according to some. If a democracy has to be like that, then I don't want to live in a democracy.

Hmm. That was a good article. Brought up some good points. Sadly, it wouldn't work here because people here, unlike Japs, are ninnies who will get pushed around by a government that they hate.

I'm guessing you missed a negative there (unless you really meant to say that Americans are ninnies), but great point. It's so much important to not be a ninny than to protect thousands of Americans from being killed with guns. I would MUCH rather not be a ninny than have laws that would've saved those 20 children's lives, because my self-view is far more important than their lives. You're so right.

Originally Posted by bronc_28

I believe there are already plenty of laws on the books, and more laws will do nothing to help prevent this from happening again.

In general, there are WAY too many laws on the books covering anything, to the point that on any given day, everyone here is probably guilty of several misdemeanors, and a felony, without even knowing it.

I am not saying sell grenades, or grenade launchers, however thats more in the spirit of what the founders of this country had in mind when the founding documents were written.

It is crazy to piss away rights, for a false sense of security.

You won't get rid of a fever by breaking your thermometer.

And you think the laws we have are useless? You'd prefer anarchy? Let's get rid of all the laws and let people do whatever they want?

Originally Posted by RageAndLov

This is a great way to do it. Baldwin would call the likes of me a "lunatic fringe". Even the police officers here do not carry firearms of any kind, which makes Norway not a democracy according to some. If a democracy has to be like that, then I don't want to live in a democracy.

I'm fully okay with cops carrying a handgun. In countries like the US where there is a lot of gang violence and such, it's necessary for a cop to have one.

I just thought of a way to cut down shooting deaths ; make the only gun available to the public the Russian "Obrez".

- Gangsters aren't going to shoot randomly from cars into bystanders when every shot sets off the airbags, ruptures everyone's eardrums and sets the upholstery on fire.
- Gangsters aren't even going to want to have gang wars anymore because it means they'll have to shoot their guns at each other, and no American gangs are that tough.
- School shootings will have a much lower bodycount when the shooter has seven broken fingers and is partially on fire after they hit the first victim.
- Deaths from accidental mishandling will drop to almost zero because people will never, ever want to handle their gun, because it might randomly explode and kill them
- Deaths caused by trigger-happy property owners thinking they're being burglarised will drop to zero, because they won't pull the trigger unless they see no other option.
- Hunting accidents will stop. Nobody's going to want to go hunting anymore.

It's the perfect system. You still have the means to protect yourself, you're just forced to think about whether it's really necessary, and if there's a way you can resolve things peacefully you'll absolutely do that instead.

I'm guessing you missed a negative there (unless you really meant to say that Americans are ninnies), but great point. It's so much important to not be a ninny than to protect thousands of Americans from being killed with guns. I would MUCH rather not be a ninny than have laws that would've saved those 20 children's lives, because my self-view is far more important than their lives. You're so right.

What law would have saved their life?
How?
Pass a ban on a certain type of gun, are all of those guns already out there going to magically disappear?

Originally Posted by Llamas

And you think the laws we have are useless? You'd prefer anarchy? Let's get rid of all the laws and let people do whatever they want?

Yes, I think a shit ton of the laws we have in the US are indeed useless.
I'm for as much freedom as possible. Anarchy? Well that's a word, like fascism, where the definition isn't set in stone, but in the context of your question, no. We, need governance, but as little of it as possible. And it should be biggest, closest to home, and smallest at the federal level.